Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds two things they cannot: the required `bookings:read` scope and an explicit prompt-injection handling rule for reviewer-written text. That injection warning is high-value behavioral context, though the description still says nothing about the shape or freshness of the summary itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the two operational caveats. Nothing is padding, though the `untrusted_fields` reference dangles slightly given there is no output schema to anchor it to.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage the definition is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should describe what comes back — it only names one field family (untrusted_fields) and leaves the actual summary contents and any empty-state behavior unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the schema or description to disambiguate on the input side.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get my rating summary" is a verbatim restatement of the tool title and name, adding no detail about what the summary aggregates (average rating, review counts, distribution) or how it differs from siblings like list_booking_reviews, list_pending_reviews, or get_booking_overview. The only added specificity is the possessive "my", which is already implied by an authenticated read tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to prefer this over list_booking_reviews or list_pending_reviews, nor any precondition beyond the scope requirement. The `bookings:read` mention is an authorization fact rather than usage guidance, so an agent choosing among the several review-related siblings gets no routing help.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.